PLEASE PROOF: Drafts of 29500-1/-4:2016; feedback due by the end of 2016-04-29

[Rex Jaeschke]

See my replies inline. Rex



-----Original Message-----
From: caroline arms [mailto:caroline.arms at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 11:26 AM
To: Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com>
Cc: SC 34 WG4 <e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org>; TC45 <e-TC45 at ecma-international.org>
Subject: Re: PLEASE PROOF: Drafts of 29500-1/-4:2016; feedback due by the end of 2016-04-29

Rex,

Moving on to checking Part 1 draft against Cor 1  (Cor 3 in the DR Log).

Items 1-4 look OK.

Item 5 looks OK, but I think the inserted text could do with a link to
18.2.10 for extLst

Rex> I agree.



Items 6-13 look OK.

Item 14.  One insertion was missed, the comma after i.e.

Rex> I agree.



Items 15-16 look OK

Item 17 looks OK, except:
  missed substitution of "1" for "on" in beforeAutospacing example

Rex> I agree.



Items 18-20 look OK

Item 21 seems to have two problems
1.  The cstheme row in table on page 303 has some extra periods compared to Cor 1.

Rex> I agree.



2.  This is not a problem with copying from Cor 1 to Part 1, but applies to Cor 1 as well.  Unless I'm going blind (or am just confused by Arabic scripts/fonts, which other readers may be), I am seeing two instances of the same example markup that are explained to have DIFFERENT results.

The first instance is the first example in the subclause 17.3.2.26 <w:r> <w:rPr> <w:rFonts w:ascii="Courier New" w:cs="Times New Roman" /> </w:rPr> <w:t>English ??????? </w:t> </w:r>

followed by:
In this run, both  English  and   ???????   should be in ASCII font slot, according to the two-step algorithm below. Therefore, both of them should be in the Courier New font face.

The second instance is immediately before the attributes table <w:r> <w:rPr> <w:rFonts w:ascii="Courier New" w:cs="Times New Roman" /> </w:rPr> <w:t>English ??????? </w:t> </w:r>

followed by:
This text run must therefore use the Courier New font for all characters in the range U+0000 to U+007F, and must use the Times New Roman font for all characters in the Complex Script range.

I have managed to download DR 9-0040, but do not have time now to follow it through to see if I can figure out when/why the duplication appeared or which might be correct.

Rex> I don’t have the expertise to comment on this.


Caroline